Disturbing New Development

[bacha29]

I'm reading reports regarding X going into terminals and so called "auditing" the payroll ,time sheets, immigration compliance etc of all contractors operating out of that terminal. Such information is private, confidential and protected by privacy laws.
Access to such information is generally limited to law enforcement. DHS, DOJ Treasury,IRS, etc.
The question is....do the powers afforded to X by means of it's DOT operating authority include law enforcement? Clearly they are operating in a manner similar to officers of the court with the only exception being the rule of law that would prohibit this type of corporate misbehavior.
Unfortunately, today many if not the majority of remaining contractors are so far in debt and so heavily dependent on the proceeds from a favorable liquidation to fund their retirement that as a result they are powerless and unable to offer any type of organized resistance to this inexcusable if not flat out unlawful act .
It is because of X's increasingly belligerent and repressive behavior toward contractors is why when I meet someone who tells me that they are a FXG "independent contractor"......I laugh right in their face.

 

[maxomega2002]

would not surprise me one bit especially smaller terminals easy pray

 

[bbsam]

It’s called “annual compliance” and as the name suggests, it happens every year. I’ve never heard of them doing entire terminals but I guess it could happen.

 

[Oldfart]

It’s called “annual compliance” and as the name suggests, it happens every year. I’ve never heard of them doing entire terminals but I guess it could happen.

Just have consider the source.

 

[59 Dano]

I'm reading reports regarding X going into terminals and so called "auditing" the payroll ,time sheets, immigration compliance etc of all contractors operating out of that terminal. Such information is private, confidential and protected by privacy laws.
Access to such information is generally limited to law enforcement. DHS, DOJ Treasury,IRS, etc.
The question is....do the powers afforded to X by means of it's DOT operating authority include law enforcement? Clearly they are operating in a manner similar to officers of the court with the only exception being the rule of law that would prohibit this type of corporate misbehavior.
Unfortunately, today many if not the majority of remaining contractors are so far in debt and so heavily dependent on the proceeds from a favorable liquidation to fund their retirement that as a result they are powerless and unable to offer any type of organized resistance to this inexcusable if not flat out unlawful act .

Oh, the humanity.

 

[bacha29]

It’s called “annual compliance” and as the name suggests, it happens every year. I’ve never heard of them doing entire terminals but I guess it could happen.

Still comes down to the same issue. It is privileged information but unfortunately there is no language describing the specific information the contractor has to provide in order to be so called "compliant" and calls into question whether the information they require in order to be "compliant" is information they are lawfully entitled to.
Same thing with the reassignment clause. Every time I called into question the absence of contractual rules and guidelines regarding when and where the reassignment clause can be exercised I got the same evasive answer....."well, it's subjective". " Subject to what"? I asked. No answer
So if you guys enjoy being cuffed while putting your name to a contract that continues to provide you, your interests and your investment with zero protections go right ahead. But you would think that after all these years there would finally emerge some organized resistance along with the demand that at least some language be installed that would offer basic economic protections giving the ever increasing capital requirements .

 

[bbsam]

Still comes down to the same issue. It is privileged information but unfortunately there is no language describing the specific information the contractor has to provide in order to be so called "compliant" and calls into question whether the information they require in order to be "compliant" is information they are lawfully entitled to.
Same thing with the reassignment clause. Every time I called into question the absence of contractual rules and guidelines regarding when and where the reassignment clause can be exercised I got the same evasive answer....."well, it's subjective". " Subject to what"? I asked. No answer
So if you guys enjoy being cuffed while putting your name to a contract that continues to provide you, your interests and your investment with zero protections go right ahead. But you would think that after all these years there would finally emerge some organized resistance along with the demand that at least some language be installed that would offer basic economic protections giving the ever increasing capital requirements .

Ok bacha. I’ll go right ahead. Honestly, I don’t even think about it. We keep up on all of it during the year and if Fedex wants it, well I simply don’t care.

 

[Bounty]

Ok bacha. I’ll go right ahead. Honestly, I don’t even think about it. We keep up on all of it during the year and if Fedex wants it, well I simply don’t care.

X must love you. Yes sir may I have another. Grow a pair.

 

[bacha29]

Ok bacha. I’ll go right ahead. Honestly, I don’t even think about it. We keep up on all of it during the year and if Fedex wants it, well I simply don’t care.

I understand. It's not a case of not caring but rather having capitulated unconditionally. Again it comes down to the inescapable fact that in light of the total domination so called "independent" contractors experience with X their only true independently made decision is the right to decide independently when you want to quit.

 

[bbsam]

X must love you. Yes sir may I have another. Grow a pair.

You do come off like a jilted lover of sorts.

But then you guys are never satisfied. Either X is ruining every contractor’s life or the contractor is a horrible thief/fraud.

 

[bbsam]

I understand. It's not a case of not caring but rather having capitulated unconditionally. Again it comes down to the inescapable fact that in light of the total domination so called "independent" contractors experience with X their only true independently made decision is the right to decide independently when you want to quit.

I agree. It’s called an “unconscionable contract”. But it’s better than a lot of gigs.

Why do courts allow so much control? No idea. Probably money in politics.

 

[It will be fine]

X must love you. Yes sir may I have another. Grow a pair.

The compliance requirements are to make sure you’re following employment law. If you’re running things properly there is no burden in providing the documentation. It can come in handy when you fire a disgruntled employee.

 

[Bounty]

You do come off like a jilted lover of sorts.

But then you guys are never satisfied. Either X is ruining every contractor’s life or the contractor is a horrible thief/fraud.

Never said you were a thief or a fraud. I’m just amazed at the blind love you have for x. They say it and you do it, no questions asked. Your unconditional love for x blows my mind. I still think you must be an x lawyer or work for corporate.

 

[bacha29]

You do come off like a jilted lover of sorts.

But then you guys are never satisfied. Either X is ruining every contractor’s life or the contractor is a horrible thief/fraud.

I disagree. What I find so astounding is X's long standing and now expanding disregard for the rule of law as it pertains to you the people X proclaims to be independent contractors More importantly that disregard for the law will likely become even more flagrant and egregious as contractors collectively remain too afraid to call into question the actions of that company as it pertains to the rule of law.
Understand, I'm not singling you out because one lowly contractor can't do anything on his own. But I'm sure you understand the focus of my comments but unfortunately few other contractors do and almost to a man will simply buckle under to X's demands because there's nothing else they can do.

 

[bacha29]

The compliance requirements are to make sure you’re following employment law. If you’re running things properly there is no burden in providing the documentation. It can come in handy when you fire a disgruntled employee.

Yes. but it is privileged information protected by the covenants the law provides including the right to privacy. Whether you as an employer are or are not in compliance is a matter for law enforcement to decide NOT Fedex. If law enforcement were to rule that as an employer you are noncompliant then X take take whatever action the law may entitle them to ..... but not before then.
This is clearly a preemptive action on the part of X that is designed to protect it's interests in the face of a business model who's days appear numbered. Whatever the case may be in regard to that matter what is for certain is that this action represents a clear interference with your right to privacy as well as your right to due process of law.

 

[dmac1]

Fedex is worried about being declared a 'co-employer- in court, whether in a class action, or in a lawsuit against a contractor where there is a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$ of liability at stake. Imagine a case where a driver for a so-called contractor hits a school bus full of children and kills 30 children. IF fedex has all the exact documentation from the contractor, it will make it a little easier to show that the contractor was honestly independent and avoid millions and millions in potential payouts, or at least keep their insurance costs lower.

Imagine how high the costs to fedex will be if contractors are determined en masse to be co-employers with fedex. It would be cheaper just to make all drivers employees. The co-employer possibility is what has the chance to break the ISP model much faster than other problems. There is zero benefit to fedex in keeping 'contractors' if fedex is a co-employer.

If fedex is a co-employer of every driver, it makes it easier for the drivers to form a union. That's just one issue.

 

[dmac1]

Yes. but it is privileged information protected by the covenants the law provides including the right to privacy. Whether you as an employer are or are not in compliance is a matter for law enforcement to decide NOT Fedex. If law enforcement were to rule that as an employer you are noncompliant then X take take whatever action the law may entitle them to ..... but not before then.
This is clearly a preemptive action on the part of X that is designed to protect it's interests in the face of a business model who's days appear numbered. Whatever the case may be in regard to that matter what is for certain is that this action represents a clear interference with your right to privacy as well as your right to due process of law.

I think that fedex can ask companies that they contract with for documentation, even if normally legally protected. Look at clothing manufacturers, even coffee growers who are demanding that the businesses they buy from aren't running sweat shops, or using child labor, or are protecting the environment. I think that it doesn't even matter if they are DOT requirements. If the company doesn't like what fedex is requesting, they don't need to do business with fedex.

I think the issue may end up being a problem for contractors in releasing employee info to a 'third party' if the employee hasn't authorized it. I don't know what the laws are on releasing employee info. Maybe no issue, or might be a major violation. The problem is NOT with fedex requesting info, they can request whatever they want from their vendors. They might be asking for something that contractors might have some legal issue in providing though. I somehow think that any employer cannot just release private info they obtained because of the employment to anyone. Seems like a major invasion of the drivers privacy.

 

[vantexan]

I disagree. What I find so astounding is X's long standing and now expanding disregard for the rule of law as it pertains to you the people X proclaims to be independent contractors More importantly that disregard for the law will likely become even more flagrant and egregious as contractors collectively remain too afraid to call into question the actions of that company as it pertains to the rule of law.
Understand, I'm not singling you out because one lowly contractor can't do anything on his own. But I'm sure you understand the focus of my comments but unfortunately few other contractors do and almost to a man will simply buckle under to X's demands because there's nothing else they can do.

Come on Bacha, with the amount of lawsuits FedEx has gotten over the years for every little thing don't you think they have legal advisors clearly spelling out what they can and can't do?

 

[dvalleyjim]

Fedex is worried about being declared a 'co-employer- in court, whether in a class action, or in a lawsuit against a contractor where there is a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$ of liability at stake. Imagine a case where a driver for a so-called contractor hits a school bus full of children and kills 30 children. IF fedex has all the exact documentation from the contractor, it will make it a little easier to show that the contractor was honestly independent and avoid millions and millions in potential payouts, or at least keep their insurance costs lower.

Imagine how high the costs to fedex will be if contractors are determined en masse to be co-employers with fedex. It would be cheaper just to make all drivers employees. The co-employer possibility is what has the chance to break the ISP model much faster than other problems. There is zero benefit to fedex in keeping 'contractors' if fedex is a co-employer.

If fedex is a co-employer of every driver, it makes it easier for the drivers to form a union. That's just one issue.

FedEx is going to pay anyway. It's called deep pockets and out of court settlement.

 

[It will be fine]

I think that fedex can ask companies that they contract with for documentation, even if normally legally protected. Look at clothing manufacturers, even coffee growers who are demanding that the businesses they buy from aren't running sweat shops, or using child labor, or are protecting the environment. I think that it doesn't even matter if they are DOT requirements. If the company doesn't like what fedex is requesting, they don't need to do business with fedex.

I think the issue may end up being a problem for contractors in releasing employee info to a 'third party' if the employee hasn't authorized it. I don't know what the laws are on releasing employee info. Maybe no issue, or might be a major violation. The problem is NOT with fedex requesting info, they can request whatever they want from their vendors. They might be asking for something that contractors might have some legal issue in providing though. I somehow think that any employer cannot just release private info they obtained because of the employment to anyone. Seems like a major invasion of the drivers privacy.

You can redact the personal info of your drivers when you submit your documents.